Explore debates about the American family. Is it in transformation or decline. The Progressive and Traditionalist approaches are reviewed.
Is the North American family an institution in transition? Or, is it an institution in decline?
Increased single parenting, decreased birth rates, prolonged childlessness within couples, growing acceptance of same-sex couples, economic independence of women within couples, increased numbers of women in the workforce, increased rates of divorce and extramarital affairs - these trends are perceived as indicators of familial evolution, or harbingers of familial dysfunction.
Liberals see these trends and sigh in relief, believing that such developments bring greater freedom to family members who may choose to create a non-traditional family environment. Greater flexibility allows for greater individual happiness, as families shape themselves around the individual needs and desires of family members. Unique families emerge with their own diverse approaches to community living. And this is regarded as progressive.
For Traditionalists, these trends indicate the decline of the family - an institution that has transcended time, and provided emotional and economic security to its members for centuries. Beliefs that the family is in decline has fuelled anti-feminist, anti-liberal, and anti-progressive backlash, particularly in the USA. This seems more than slightly ironic given America's strong ideological emphasis on individualism, free will, and personal self-fulfillment.
It is my view that Traditionalists do not have a clear picture of the ways in which social organizations develop over time within communities - this is particularly true of their perception of family life. Sociological and historical research clearly demonstrates that family structures have changes radically over time, in response to a wide variety of social forces. Families are not stable. In fact, their capacity to change overt time makes them a valuable adaptive mechanism for individuals and groups. The family changes in response to the physical, emotional and economic needs of its members. Common law marriage is a prime example of this. As property laws have changed, and women have achieved greater economic independence in the West, traditional marriage structures have diminished. Common law marriage has arisen to replace traditional marriage arrangements. People still live in couples and have children - mostly heterosexual couples - they just choose to live in couples differently than before. These changes point to the organic nature of human culture and community life.
So, what could be wrong with this? Why might traditionalists resist change? There are several answers to this question, however the most popular response points to their fear of loss of power. Traditionalists may garner personal power or emotional stability from traditional family arrangements. They may invest in prescribed structures and a predictable course of action since this makes their own community feel more easily navigated. Beliefs are buttressed by moral claims where Traditional lifestyles are regarded as 'good, right and proper'.
It is this moral discourse that distracts us from the reality of family life. Perhaps there is no universal 'good, right or proper' way to structure all families? Rather, families can organize around principles of support - emotional, physical, and financial. In this case, what is common to all families is the shared understanding that families represent a complex network of alliances that reflect an array of personal, cultural, historical and immediate relations. The unique complexity of these networks can not possibly be contained by one 'proper and appropriate' familial structure.
